Opinion of the Court. applied only to fish "imported otherwise than in barrels or half barrels." As, however, the fish were preserved by being dry salted, we are of opinion that they came within the third paragraph, and were subject to the ad valorem duty there specified. But the action cannot be maintained if the statutory requirements in respect of notice were not complied with. Rev. Stat. §§ 2931, 3011. While such protest need not be technically precise, it must "definitely and specifically" set forth the grounds of the importer's objections, to the end that the collector may have seasonable opportunity to remove them, and that the importer may not raise other objections than those on which he acted, after the business is closed and the money paid into the Treasury. Herrman v. Robertson, ante, 521. This involves the designation in substance, though exact accuracy is not required, of the provision under which the importer insists the goods are dutiable, so as to comprehensively indicate the grounds of alleged error and afford the means of rectification. The importers assumed to do this here, and objected that the fish were not "pickled fish" liable to a duty of one cent per pound, but were "dry fish" dutiable at one-half cent per pound; or, in other words, the inference from the duty specified was that the collector should have assessed them under the second paragraph above quoted and not under the first. The collector, who had classified the fish in accordance with the entry, was thus notified that he should have classified them under a clause which was in terms inapplicable. It was only from the connection of the words "dry fish" with the rate named, that the collector could have inferred that the importers meant that the fish were cured by being dried; but the clause did not apply, and he was left to conjecture as to whether the fish might not have been originally pickled and become subsequently dry. We do not say that the protest need necessarily have stated that the fish had never been pickled, but it was essential to its sufficiency that it should amount to a notification that the importers claimed that the fish were cured by being dried or salted, and not by being pickled. Had the second paragraph applied, the protest Statement of the Case. might be treated as definite enough; but, as the case stands, it must be held to have been insufficient. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with a direction to enter judgment for the defendant. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON did not hear the argument, and took no part in the consideration and decision of the case. SEEBERGER v. SCHLESINGER. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 274. Argued and submitted March 13, 1894. - Decided April 9, 1894. 動 Chinese goat skins, tanned with the hair on, so that the skin is soft and pliant, should not be classified for the assessment of customs duties as rugs," under the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488. The commercial designation of an imported article is not a matter of which courts can take judicial notice, but is a fact to be proved by evidence. When the court below makes special findings, no exception is necessary to raise the question whether the facts support the judgment. Shell-covered opera glasses, composed of shell, metal, and glass, imported under the tariff act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, were subject to be classed as manufactures composed in part of metal, under Schedule C, and were dutiable at 45 per cent. THIS was an action by the firm of Schlesinger & Mayer against the collector of the port of Chicago to recover duties paid upon certain importations of Chinese goat skins and pearl opera glasses, entered for consumption at the custom-house at Chicago. The case was tried by the court, without a jury. The court made a special finding of facts, and awarded the plaintiff judgment for $113.60 for excess duties upon the goat skins, and $6.60 upon the opera glasses. Defendant sued out a writ of error from this court. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for plaintiff in error. Mr. Percy L. Shuman and Mr. W. Wickham Smith for defendants in error submitted on their brief. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. This case involves the proper classification for duties under the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488, of Chinese goat skins and pearl opera glasses. 1. In reference to the goat skins, the court found that the plaintiffs imported and entered at the custom-house in the port and district of Chicago certain Chinese goat skins, dressed and finished, upon which the plaintiffs paid a duty of 40 per cent ad valorem, as "rugs" not otherwise provided for, classi fied and assessed by the defendant collector, under Schedule K, act of March 3, 1883, namely: "Carpets and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton . . . not otherwise herein specified, forty per centum ad valorem; and mats, rugs shall be sub . jected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets." Plaintiffs paid these duties under protest, and appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury, claiming that such merchandise should be assessed at a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem under Schedule N, "Sundries," as "skins dressed and finished, of all kinds, not specially enumerated." The court further found "that the goods in question were described in the invoice as 'Chinese goat skins;' that they are tanned with the hair on so that the skin is soft and pliant; that none of the skins are whole or entire, but that the articles imported are made of pieces of skins tanned as aforesaid, loosely sewed together so as to make large parallelogram-shaped pieces about 18 inches wide by 36 to 48 inches long; that they are advertised and sold to some extent for floor rugs, and are sometimes lined and trimmed for sleigh and carriage robes; that they are not always used in the shape imported, but are sometimes cut apart at the seams, or cut into strips and dyed, and used for trimming lap robes, overcoats," etc. Opinion of the Court. We agree with the court below in holding that the skins in question were improperly classified as "rugs." Schedule K of the act of March 3, 1883, (22 Stat. page 508,) is entitled "Wool and Woollens," and, until the clause in question is reached, provides for duties upon various classes of wools, woollen goods, clothing, carpets, including, as an analogous material, the hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, with fabrics made of such hair, or mixtures of the same with wool. The schedule then imposes a duty of six cents per yard upon "hemp or jute carpeting," and then provides that "carpets and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton, or parts of either or other material, not otherwise herein specified, forty per centum ad valorem; and mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks, -bedsides, and other portions of carpets or carpetings, shall be subjected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets or carpetings of like character or description; and the duty on all other mats not exclusively of vegetable material, screens, hassocks, and rugs, shall be forty per centum ad valorem." There is no mention here of skins, or of hair attached to the skin; and while, if the articles in question were used exclusively or principally as rugs, they might be included within that designation, the fact that they were of the size of small rugs, and were advertised and sold to some extent for that purpose, would not be sufficient, if a more specific designation could be found. It not only appears that they were sometimes lined and trimmed for sleigh and carriage robes, but that they were not always used in the shapes imported, and were sometimes cut apart at the seams, and cut into strips and dyed and used for trimming garments. In fact, their uses were so various that they afford a very unsatisfactory criterion for their classification. The plaintiffs took the ground in their protest, and in this they were sustained by the court below, that they should be classified under Schedule N, "Sundries. Skins dressed and finished." The clause relied upon is one providing for the assessment of leathers, and reads as follows (page 513): "Leather, bend or belting leather, and Spanish or other sole leather, and leather not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, fifteen per centum ad valorem. Opinion of the Court. "Calfskins, tanned, or tanned and dressed, and dressed upper leather of all other kinds, and skin; dressed and finished, of all kinds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, and skins of morocco, finished, twenty per centum ad valorem. "Skins for morocco, tanned, but unfinished, ten per centum ad valorem. "All manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem." It is insisted, however, that the item of "skins dressed and finished," read in connection with the residue of the clause, and particularly with "skins for morocco, tanned, but unfinished," indicates that, by "skins dressed and finished" were meant skins dressed and finished in the similitude of leather; that is, by having the hair removed; and that a reference to the corresponding clause of the Revised Statutes, section 2504, page 477, shows still more clearly that the clause in question was not intended to include skins with the hair on: "Leather. Bend or belting-leather, and Spanish or other sole leather fifteen per centum ad valorem; calfskins, tanned, or tanned and dressed: twenty-five per centum ad valorem; upper leather of all other kinds, and skins dressed and finished of all kinds, not otherwise provided for: twenty per centum ad valorem; skins for morocco, tanned, but unfinished: ten per centum ad valorem; manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. "Leather and skins japanned, patent, or enameled: thirtyfive per centum ad valorem. "All leather and skins, tanned, not otherwise provided for: twenty-five per centum ad valorem." In this court, it is further claimed by the collector that while none of the clauses referred to include skins of animals with the hair on eo nomine, the goat skins in question fall either directly or under the similitude clause within the description of "dressed furs on the skin," page 513, and were dutiable at twenty per centum ad valorem; that although goat skins are |